SHITARAMGIRI SHIVAJIGIRI GOSWAMI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/13100/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240593922024)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13100 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SHITARAMGIRI SHIVAJIGIRI GOSWAMI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DADHICHI L LIMBOLA(10936) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 02/11/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India read with the relevant
provisions of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition)
Act, challenging the action initiated by the respondent
authorities.
2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“A. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue an appropriate writ,
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:41:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/13100/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240593922024)
order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned notice-
cum- eviction order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the respondent
no.2 in the interest of justice; Annexure: A
B. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition,
YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent
authorities to maintain status-quo and not to evict the petitioners
in connection with the impugned notice-cum-eviction order dated
22.08.2024 passed by the respondent no.2; (Annexure: A)
C. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent
authorities to decide the representation addressed to respondent
authorities for 1egularisation of the said land.
D. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further
reliefs, in favour of the petitioner, as deemed fit in the interest of
justice.”
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners are in
possession and occupation of the land bearing Survey
No. 10, House No. 476, since the year 1995. It is further
the case of the petitioners that they have been regularly
paying taxes and other dues to the Gram Panchayat as
well as the Municipal Corporation in respect of the said
premises. In view of their long-standing possession and
occupation, the petitioners submitted an application
before the Collector seeking regularisation of their
residential premises. However, the said application was
not decided by the competent authority. In the
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:41:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/13100/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240593922024)
meantime, the respondent authorities issued an eviction
notice dated 22.08.2024, which has been challenged by
way of the present petition.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dadhichi Limbola for the
petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the
respondent-State.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Limbola submits that the
petitioners have been residing on the subject land for
the last three decades and that the respondent
authorities have been collecting taxes and other dues
from them in respect of the premises in question. It is
further submitted that even the election cards have been
issued to the petitioners by the competent authorities,
thereby recognising their residence at the subject
premises. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot be
treated as encroachers in the manner alleged by the
respondent authorities, particularly when they have
been residing at the subject premises for several
decades and the same is their only residential
accommodation. It is, therefore, submitted that, instead
of considering the petitioners' request for regularisation,
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:41:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/13100/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240593922024)
the respondent authorities have proceeded to issue the
impugned notice for eviction. It is submitted that,
despite the aforesaid directions issued by the Apex
Court, the application of the petitioners was not decided
within the stipulated period, nor was their request for
regularisation properly considered. It is further
submitted that, during the pendency of the present
petition, the petitioners were served with a decision
dated 07.10.2025, whereby they were called upon to
deposit an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- towards
regularisation of their unauthorised occupation. Learned
advocate submits that, although the Apex Court had
directed the authorities to consider the application of
the petitioners sympathetically, the respondent
authorities have determined the amount of premium at
Rs.35,00,000/-, which is beyond the financial capacity of
the petitioners. It is, therefore, submitted that the
respondent authorities may be directed to reconsider
the petitioners' application for regularisation and, till
such consideration, appropriate protection may be
granted against their eviction.
6. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Trivedi appearing for the
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:41:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/13100/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240593922024)
respondent–State submits that the petitioners have
unauthorisedly encroached upon Government land
admeasuring approximately 718.88 square metres,
whereas their application seeking regularisation is
confined to an area of only 200 square metres. It is
further submitted that, during the course of the
Panchnama, it was found that, apart from the residential
premises, the petitioners had also constructed godown
premises and shops on the subject land. Therefore, the
request for regularisation has been considered only in
respect of the residential premises admeasuring 200
square metres. Learned AGP further submits that the
competent authority has determined the premium
payable for regularisation at Rs.35,00,000/-. In support
of the said determination, reliance is placed upon the
affidavit filed by the Prant Officer, Jamnagar Rural. It is
submitted that the average sale price reflected in the
relevant sale transactions was Rs.6,094/- per square
metre, which was considered as the prevailing market
value and was forwarded by the Town Planner to the
District Land Valuation Committee for consideration. It
is further submitted that the District Land Valuation
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:41:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/13100/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240593922024)
Committee independently examined the proposal and,
after comparing the relevant sale instances, determined
the market value of the subject land at Rs.7,000/- per
square metre. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi further submits
that, in accordance with the Government Resolution
dated 08.01.2018, the premium for regularisation of
unauthorised occupation is required to be calculated at
2.5 times the prevailing market value, which comes to
approximately Rs.35,00,000/- in the present case. It is,
therefore, submitted that the authority has already
considered the request of the petitioners for
regularisation and determined the amount payable in
accordance with the applicable Government Resolution.
Since the petitioners are unwilling to deposit the amount
so determined, no further relief can be granted in their
favour. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates appearing for the respective parties
and having perused the material available on record,
this Court has also considered the order passed by the
Apex Court, more particularly the directions issued
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:41:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/13100/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240593922024)
therein, which read as under:-
“1. The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.
2. The petitioner appears to be a landless migrant labourer. He
has constructed a residential house on a small piece of land in
Revenue Survey No.10, Village Moti Khavadi, District Jamnagar,
Gujarat. The house was statedly constructed somewhere in the
year 1995. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on
20.05.2015 alleging that he has encroached upon the Gram
Panchayat land. The petitioner, meanwhile, submitted an
application on 11.10.2017 before the Collector, Jamnagar to
regularise his residential unit. Such a power of regularisation is
vested with the Collector under Section 62 of the Gujarat Land
Revenue Code, 1879. The petitioner alleges that while his
application for regularisation of residential unit is still pending
consideration before the Collector, Jamnagar, Gujarat, the
Mamlatdar, Jamnagar (Rural) and other authorities have initiated
action to demolish his residential unit. Since the High Court has
declined to protect the demolition of the petitioner's residential
house, he has filed the instant Special Leave Petition.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into
consideration the fact that the petitioner belongs to poor strata of
the society and is running from pillar to post to save his small
shelter home, we are inclined to dispose of this Special Leave
Petition with a direction to the Collector, Jamnagar, Gujarat to
take up the petitioner's application dated 11.10.2017 for
regularisation of the said residential unit, and pass an appropriate
order sympathetically and in accordance with law within a period
of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of
this order. Ordered accordingly.
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:41:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/13100/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240593922024)
4. the Till such time status quo regarding demolition of the
residential house of the petitioner shall be maintained.
5. It is clarified that we have not expressed any views on the
merits of the case.
6. As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands
disposed of.”
7.1. From the material available on record, it appears that
the petitioners had approached the competent authority
seeking regularisation of their residential premises on
the ground that they had been residing on the subject
land for the last three decades. However, upon
verification and scrutiny of the subject land, the
respondent authorities found that, apart from the
residential premises, the petitioners had also
constructed 14 rooms and had let out the same to
different persons. It was further found that the total area
of unauthorised occupation was approximately 718.88
square metres, whereas the petitioners had sought
regularisation only in respect of 200 square metres,
comprising their residential premises. During the
pendency of the present proceedings, the competent
authority has considered the application of the
petitioners and determined the premium payable for
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:41:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/13100/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240593922024)
regularisation at Rs.35,00,000/-. In the affidavit filed by
the Prant Officer, the methodology adopted by the
competent authority for determining the aforesaid
amount has been explained. The relevant details are
reflected in paragraphs 6 to 10 of the said affidavit,
which read as under:-
“6. Pursuant to the application of the petitioner seeking
regularisation of 200 square metres, the Mamlatdar, Jamnagar
(Rural), by communication dated 17.10.2024, requested the Town
Planner, Jamnagar, to determine the prevailing market value of
the land proposed to be regularised.
7. In accordance with Clause 1.1 (i) of the Government Resolution
dated 11.09.2018, the Town Planner scrutinised the registered sale
transactions pertaining to the locality of the subject land. Out of
approximately 25 sale transactions, three representative sale
transactions of the immediately preceding one year were selected
in terms of the prescribed methodology. The average sale price
reflected therein worked out to Rs.6,094/- per sq. metre, which
was proposed as the prevailing market value and forwarded to the
District Land Valuation Committee for determination of the final
market value. A copy of the Government Resolution dated
11.09.2018 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R1.
8. The District Land Valuation Committee, under the Chairmanship
of the Collector, Jamnagar, convened its meeting on 21.10.2024.
The Committee independently considered the proposal submitted
by the Town Planner along with the representative sale
transactions and other relevant factors. Upon such consideration,
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:41:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/13100/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240593922024)
the Committee unanimously determined the prevailing market
value of the subject land at Rs.7,000/- per square metre. A copy
of the minutes of the meeting of the District Land Valuation
Committee is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R2.
9. The Government Resolution dated 08.01.1980 provides that
where unauthorised occupation is regularised, premium is
recoverable at 2.5 times the prevailing market value. Accordingly,
after the District Land Valuation Committee determined the market
value at Rs.7,000/- per sq. metre, the market value of 200 sq.
metres was calculated at Rs.14,00,000/- and, by applying the
prescribed multiplier of 2.5, the premium payable was determined
at Rs.35,00,000/-. A copy of the said Government Resolution
dated 08.01.1980 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure - R3.
10. It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the amount of
Rs.35,00,000/- is neither arbitrary nor discretionary but has been
determined strictly in accordance with the Government Resolution
dated 11.09.2018, the decision of the District Land Valuation
Committee and the Government Resolution dated 08.01.1980. The
respondent authorities have thus acted strictly in accordance with
the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the
applicable Government policy while determining the premium
payable by the petitioner.”
7.2. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioners
do not have any legal right to occupy Government land
without the permission of the competent authority.
However, considering the long-standing residential
occupation of the petitioners and the directions issued
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:41:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/13100/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240593922024)
by the Apex Court, the respondent authorities have
considered their request for regularisation and have
communicated the amount of premium payable for the
same. The competent authority has determined the
premium at Rs.35,00,000/- after considering the
prevailing market value of the subject land and the
applicable Government Resolution. However, the
petitioners have expressed their inability and
unwillingness to deposit the aforesaid amount. In the
aforesaid circumstances, when the competent authority
has already considered the request for regularisation
and communicated the amount payable, this Court finds
no ground to grant further relief in favour of the
petitioners. It is required to be noted that mere long-
standing possession or payment of taxes to the local
authorities does not, by itself, confer any legal right or
title over Government land.
7.3. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to refer
to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Joginder
v. State of Haryana , reported in (2021) 3 SCC 300 ,
wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:41:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/13100/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240593922024)
“10. It is required to be noted that the persons in illegal
occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land cannot, as a
matter of right, claim regularization. Regularization of the illegal
occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land can only be
as per the policy of the State Government and the conditions
stipulated in the Rules. If it is found that the conditions stipulated
for regularisation have not been fulfilled, such persons in illegal
occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land are not
entitled to regularization. As observed by this Court in the recent
decision in the case of State of Odisha v. Bichitrananda Das,
reported in (2020) 12 SCC 649, an applicant who seeks the benefit
of the policy must comply with its terms. In the present case, the
policy which was formulated by the State Government which
culminated in Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules specifically contained a
stipulation to the effect that the illegal/unauthorised occupation up
to a maximum of 200 square yards only can be sold on
regularisation and on fulfilment of other conditions mentioned in
Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules. The petitioners are found to be in
illegal occupation of the area of more than 200 square yards.
Therefore, one of the conditions mentioned in Rule 12(4) is not
satisfied and therefore both, the competent authority as well as
the High Court have rightly held that the petitioners are not
entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Rule 12(4) of the 1964
Rules. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the
High Court as well as the competent authority.”
7.4. It is a well-settled principle of law that no protection
can be granted to an unauthorised encroacher for the
purpose of safeguarding his possession over Government
land. No equitable relief can be extended to a person in
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:41:10 IST 2026
C/SCA/13100/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240593922024)
unauthorised occupation of Government land in exercise
of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of
any enforceable legal right, no further interference by
this Court is called for in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition
is dismissed.
9. It is, however, clarified that, before taking any steps for
eviction of the petitioners from the subject premises, the
respondent authorities shall follow the procedure
prescribed under the applicable law.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:41:10 IST 2026